Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Hi Allynh,
This is a great example of a counterfactual, drawing a conclusion from an if statement that is not factual

allynh wrote:
That's obvious. If Fomenko is correct then everyone else is wrong. Tough. Live with it.

Counterfactual: A counterfactual assertion is a conditional whose antecedent is false and whose consequent describes how the world would have been if the antecedent had obtained. The counterfactual takes the form of a subjunctive conditional: If P had obtained, then Q would have obtained. In understanding and assessing such a statement we are asked to consider how the world would have been if the antecedent condition had obtained. For example, If the wind had not reached 50 miles per hour, the bridge would not have collapsed or If the Security Council had acted, the war would have been averted. We can ask two types of questions about counterfactual conditionals: What is the meaning of the statement, and how do we determine whether it is true or false? A counterfactual conditional cannot be evaluated as a truth-functional conditional, since a truth-functional conditional with false antecedent is ipso facto true. (That is, if P then Q is equivalent to either not P or Q.) So is it necessary to provide a logical analysis of the truth conditions of counterfactuals if they are to be useful in rigorous thought.

There is a close relationship between counterfactual reasoning and causal reasoning. If we assert that P caused Q (in the circumstances Ci), it is implied that we would assert: If P had not occurred (in circumstances Ci) then Q would not have occurred. So a causal judgment implies a set of counterfactual judgments. Symmetrically, a counterfactual judgment is commonly supported by reference to one or more causal processes that would have conveyed the world from the situation of the antecedent to the consequent. When we judge that the Tacoma Narrows Bridge would not have collapsed had the wind not reached 50 miles per hour, we rely on a causal theory of the structural dynamics of the bridge and the effects of the wind in reaching the consequent.

In the same way, the counterfactual statement "If Fomenko is right(P), then everyone else is wrong(Q)" implies a causal relationship between the supposed truth of P (Fomenko's chronology is right) and Q (everyone else's chronology is wrong)

How do we assign a truth value to a counterfactual statement? The most systematic answer is to appeal to causal relations and causal laws. If we believe that we have a true causal analysis of the occurrence of Q, and if P is a necessary part of the set of sufficient conditions that bring Q to pass—then we can argue that, had P occurred, Q would have occurred. David Lewis (1973) analyzes the truth conditions and logic of counterfactuals in terms of possible worlds (possible world semantics). A counterfactual is interpreted as a statement about how things occur in other possible worlds governed by the same laws of nature. Roughly: in every possible world that is relevantly similar to the existing world but in which the wind does not reach 50 miles per hour, the bridge does not collapse. What constitutes relevant similarity between worlds is explained in terms of being subject to the same laws of nature. On this approach we understand the counterfactual If P had occurred, Q would have occurred as a statement along these lines: P & {laws of nature} entail Q. This construction introduces a notion of physical necessity to the rendering of counterfactuals: given P, it is physically necessary that Q.

Since in Fomenko's books, starting with what I've read in the first four books, there are numerous assertions, for Fomenko's chronology to be believable, in a semi-formal sort of way, each claim could be represented by either

F=unsubstantiated, claim without evidence, assertion of proof when really other reasonable explanations are possible...

or ?=no data, unverifiable, no evidence

like most disciplines, history can only really work with probabilities and not truth tables, ie there is no way known to go back in time and verify what happened, so we must work like a detective to gather corroborating evidence that can be judged by a faith system, a belief that something can be trusted 'beyond all reasonable doubt'... notice the word 'reasonable'

So Velikovsky's chronology could be represented by a set of V{T,T,T,?,T,F,....n}
and Fomenko's chronology could be represented by the set F{F,F,T,F,?,?...n}

then Velikovsky{T,T,T,?,T,F,....n} .....if there are ***any doubts or lack of proof, it means that
V = NOT True in logic...
so we can't use the word 'truth' with regard to V's hypothesis...

We ***also cannot use the word 'Truth' in regard to ***ANY historian,
***including Fomenko:
ie Fomenko{F,T,F,?,T,F,....n} ... if there are ***any doubts or lack of proof means Fomendo = NOT True
so we can't use the word 'truth' with regard to F's hypothesis either!

So, Allynh, we have your counterfactual statement looking like this...
If Fomenko is correct (P) then everyone else is wrong (Q).
If P then Q, where ***P is NOT true*** is by definition a counterfactual statement,
since we've just seen neither Velikovsky or Fomenko can be formally considered 'True', they can only make their individual case for revising chronologies,
in Velikovsky's case we have a hypothesis with a set of research founded in astrophysics, ancient documents, myths and legends, archaeology etc...

However, in Fomenko's case we must trust Fomenko's interpretation of documents that he claims are all forgeries, he points out extremely dodgy etymology like Apollonius 'might' be Nicolas Copernicus based on the P and the L in Apollonius and the ethnic name of Pole or from Poland... here the real comparison should be between two names, or two countries, ie can Apollonius the Greek, be the same as Copernicus the Pole?

If we compare first the two names, Apollonius of Perga, a Greek, and Nicolas Copernicus a Pole, we find, using Fomenko's consonants-only etymology, PLN and NCLS...
These consonants are not similar in any way.. so Fomenko's assertion fails here...

If we compare the names for each **ethnic origin, the words 'Greek' and 'Pole' have not even one consonant in common, so Fomenko fails here again...

so in this case for Fomenko to decide to compare in one case a ***name, and then use two letters out of the **ethnicity of the other. These men are separated by centuries and to claim they are the ***same person based on this particular reasoning is absurd.
But in reality he doesn't claim that, he asks 'are they the same?', answer NO!

To conclude that these two individuals are really the same person is more than illogical, it's absurd. It's embarrassing. And that's without going into how word stems work in Indo-European languages like Latin, Phrygian, Greek and Polish... Semitic languages have generally three-consonant stems, so Fomenko here is so off-the-mark he should have stuck to mathematics which I think he proved he could do very well, and kept out of etymology for a start because he just doesn't have a clue what he's talking about when it comes to comparing languages and the history of words...

Fomenko's argument from etymology is way off here, a better argument would have been from ancient tribal migrations, but since Tahitians and New Zealand Maori had a common origin eight hundred years ago, does not prove that Tahitians are Maoris, or that the first voyagers that found New Zealand are living today and playing rugby, ethnic common origins are not proof of chronology errors.

The English Saxons who spoke Old English and the Saxons who stayed in Germany morphed into different people, despite their ancient links, Old English and Middle English are not understandable today by modern English speakers, Old German and Gothic, and Old Norse are not the same languages as modern German, one and a half millenia have made the languages drift apart

Turks move from Central Asia into Turkey before Fomenko has the beginning of his chronology, approx the tenth century in real history, and over a thousand years of living in Turkey have become different in both language, habits and culture, so Turks are just not Trojans, their language is totally different

"The Turkic languages are a language family of at least thirty-five languages, spoken by Turkic peoples from Southeastern Europe and the Mediterranean to Siberia and Western China. The Turkic languages originated in a region of East Asia spanning Western China to Mongolia, where Proto-Turkic is thought to have been spoken, from where they expanded to Central Asia and farther west during the ***first millennium."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_languages

I'm sorry, but 'Frank' doesn't resolve to 'TRNK' which doesn't equal 'Trojan' which doesn't equal 'Tarquinian' which doesn't equal 'Turk'.. for goodness sakes! What Fomenko is confusing is the ancient movements of tribes, which led to language families, with steady sound changes over the centuries, so the legends of early Rome have Etruscans migrating from the Trojan area, a fairly sound hypothesis, the evidence is the great sound changes and language differences which proves the groups have been apart for millenia...Franks came out of the Gothic tribes who moved into Northern Europe in the first centuries after Christ. Many tribes had traditions of descending from Trojans, which doesn't say they were identical to Trojans, the Trojan story is a tribal memory of something that was supposed to happen nearly two thousand years ***before Fomenko believes history started.

"...or records of ancient poets and historians as relating to the Phrygians;.... the records of Assyrian kings as they relate to the Phrygians and eastern Anatolia are in ... See also Hittite_Treaties.html for Hittite treaties that relate to the area. Ancient records are important to the understanding of the collapse of the Bronze Age civilizations about ***1180 B.C., and in the wake of the collapse appeared the Phrygians, traditions of migrations of people (the Etruscans and the ancestors of the Romans) from Lydia / the Troad, fleeing the devastated and drought-ridden region."

"...in the first attested incursion in Thrace, the Goths were mentioned as Boranoi by Zosimus, and then as Boradoi by Gregory Thaumaturgus. The first incursion of the Roman Empire that can be attributed to Goths is the sack of Histria in 238. Several such raids followed in subsequent decades, in particular the Battle of Abrittus in 251, led by Cniva, in which the Roman Emperor Decius was killed. At the time, there were at least two groups of Goths: the Thervingi and the Greuthungs. Goths were subsequently heavily recruited into the Roman Army to fight in the Roman-Persian Wars, notably participating at the Battle of Misiche in 242. The Moesogoths settled in Thrace and Moesia."

"The first seaborne raids took place in three subsequent years, probably 255-257. An unsuccessful attack on Pityus was followed in the second year by another, which sacked by Pityus and Trabzon and ravaged large areas in the Pontus. In the third year, a much larger force devastated large areas of Bithynia and the Propontis, including the cities of Chalcedon, Nicomedia, Nicaea, Apamea Myrlea, Cius and Bursa. By the end of the raids, the Goths had seized control over Crimea and the Bosporus and captured several cities on the Euxine coast, including Olbia and Tyras, which enabled them to engage in widespread naval activities..."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths

Just like the obvious similarities between the languages Welsh and Irish Gaelic, it's the similarities AND differences that prove that a large amount of time separates the two language groups.... but Welsh does not equal Irish, and an individual living today does not have the same identity as someone living three thousand years ago...

Identifying ethnic origins is simply not the same as claiming that two groups are the ***same, and saying that all the people who descended from one tribe, and migrated into different areas, and whose languages slowly morphed into different mutually incomprehensible languages like Franks into French, Old Norse into Danish, Swedish, Icelandic, Norn and Norwegen... and the hypothetical origins of Dutch, Flemish, Belgian, Spanish, Breton, Portuguese, and innumerable others... Vikings can be cross referenced to Baghdad through the Vikings hoards of Arabic silver coins which they often melted down and used for decorations in their arts and crafts, armour etc.. a unique sort of evidence is the weight of silver is often calculated to be quantum amounts of silver coins...

So these are only a couple more examples that show Fomenko is not a reliable person to do chronology, unless someone can provide reasonable justification for these obvious errors and falsehoods in Fomenko's writings

I haven't read the book, but the article in the NYTimes is evocative. The Quran shows the mix of all three religions when they split off from Christianity. It was only over time that those similarities were edited out of the religions/histories of the other two. Fun stuff.

Not just for Christians. Snark/Art Resource, NY
THE ISLAMIC JESUS
How the King of the Jews Became a Prophet of the Muslims
By Mustafa Akyol
275 pp. St Martin’s Press. $26.99.

How did a Jewish preacher who became the Christian Messiah also become one of the most admired figures in the Quran? Mustafa Akyol, a Turkish journalist and contributing opinion writer for The International New York Times, sets out to explore this apparent conundrum.

The result will come as something of a revelation to many non-Muslim readers, since Jesus is revered in Islam’s sacred text as a great teacher and prophet, while his mother, Mary, gets more ink — and praise — than in all four New Testament Gospels put together.

If the Quran’s portrayal of Jesus is familiar in outline, however, its details are sometimes not, especially to Western Christians used to a single canonical version. The Quran is more ecumenical, dipping into the rich mélange of Middle Eastern traditions contained in the apocryphal and “gnostic” gospels and still very much alive in the popular lore of Eastern Christianity. It shows Jesus making clay birds and then breathing life into them, for instance, or Mary giving birth not in a Bethlehem stable with Joseph in attendance but alone under a palm tree, deep in the desert.

Akyol makes good use of both canonical and noncanonical sources, tracing where and why the Islamic approach agrees with Christian tradition (yes to Jesus as the messenger, prophet, word and spirit of God), and where it disagrees (no to the Resurrection, and no to divinity). Along the way, he ups the ante by finding what he calls “astonishing” parallels between the Quran and early Christian texts, though such astonishment seems unnecessary to this reader. Given the fertile interchange of ideas and lore in the multiethnic Byzantine Middle East, such parallels were not only likely, but even inevitable.

No new religion comes into being fully made, like Venus on her half-shell. And the Quran is quite open about this, as Akyol notes. It fulsomely acknowledges its debt by declaring that it comes to confirm both the Torah and the Gospels — to renew their ethical traditions. And since that was also part of the Jesus message — a renewal of Jewish tradition, not a break with it — Akyol presents the Islamic Jesus as more of a Jewish prophet than a Christian savior.

To bolster his argument, he delves into the split within the early Jesus movement: between the non-Jewish Hellenic church founded by Paul, which lasted and flourished, and the Jewish “Jerusalem Church” under James, which did neither. The idea is that remnants of these “Jewish Christians” might have survived into the seventh century to influence the Quranic concept of Jesus, though this seems something of a Dan Brownian stretch.

But Akyol excels in the last chapter, which will doubtless raise some eyebrows with its title alone: “What Jesus Can Teach Muslims Today.” In it, he makes a forceful argument for Jesus as the expression of the spirit instead of the letter of the law, and against the soulless legalism of both first-century Pharisees and 21st-century Islamic fundamentalists.

Is that too big a leap in both time and theology? Maybe not. Akyol frames it this way: “The three great Abrahamic religions of our battered world, despite all the past and present tensions between them, come together” in the story of Jesus. “Whether we are Jews, Christians or Muslims, we share either a faith followed by him, or a faith built on him, or a faith that venerates him.”

That’s about as interfaith as you can get. And whatever quibbles one might have with Akyol’s reasoning, it’s a welcome expansion of the fragile territory known as common ground.

I'm still reading through Book One. When I get to a clear timeline, I'll let you know when the schisms occurred. The write up in wiki is what I remember when I read the book years ago.

Wiki - New Chronology (Fomenko) wrote:
- The history of religions runs as follows: the pre-Christian period (before the 11th century and the birth of Jesus), Bacchic Christianity (11th and 12th centuries, before and after the life of Jesus), Christianity (12th to 16th centuries) and its subsequent mutations into Orthodox Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam.

A simple search on Book One found these comments, using the word "muslim".

Page 424, Google Books. Page 466 in pdf.

Page 458 , Google Books. Page 500 in pdf.

I suspect that I'm not asking the right question to find it using search. I'll just have to keep reading. I'll let you know when I get there. I need to start a list of all the things that you want me to find as I read along. HA!

BTW, I am enjoying the Phd paper that you found. Working through it now. Thanks...

- The history of religions runs as follows: the pre-Christian period (before the 11th century and the birth of Jesus), Bacchic Christianity (11th and 12th centuries, before and after the life of Jesus), Christianity (12th to 16th centuries) and its subsequent mutations into Orthodox Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam.

A simple search on Book One found these comments, using the word "muslim".

Do you believe the history of the muslims was faked by Catholic Christians?
If so, how?
Did they manage to forge all the arabic documents, hadith etc?
What about the historic buildings in the middle east, around the Mediterranean, in Egypt, Iran, India, Central Asia, Afghanistan and Asia that cross-reference this islamic history?

A simple search of google using 'muslim chronology' shows this page:

(two small snippets chosen arbitrarily from a long list, from 570 AD to 685 AD, and from 1519 AD to 1571 AD):
(this exercise could easily be repeated for India, China, South East Asia etc)

Year Event
570 Birth of Prophet Muhammed (p) at Mecca.
610 Revelation of the first verses of the Qur’an.
Ali ibn Abu Talib (r) and Abu Bakr as Siddiq (r) accept Islam.
615 Conversion of Omar ibn al Khattab (r).
620 A group of Muslims migrates to Abyssinia to escape the persecution in Mecca.
622 Prophet Muhammed (p) migrates to Madina.
Start of the Islamic calendar.
624 Battle of Badr.
625 Battle of Uhud.
626 Battle of Khandaq (Battle of the Trench).
627 Prophet Muhammed (p) concludes the Treaty of Hudaibiya with the Meccans.
628 The Muslims reclaim Mecca.
The Prophet sends messages to Khosroe of Persia, Heraclius of Byzantium, Muqawqis of Egypt and the king of Yemen, inviting them to accept Islam.
632 Farewell pilgrimage of Prophet Muhammed (p).
The last verse of the Qur’an is revealed.
Defensive expedition to Tabuk against the Byzantines ends in a stalemate and commander Zaid bin Harris is killed in action.
Prophet Muhammed (p) passes away.
The Companions establish the Caliphate to affirm the historical continuity of Islam.
Abu Bakr as Siddiq (r) is elected the first Caliph.
Death of Fatimat az Zahra (r), beloved daughter of the Prophet, wife of Ali ibn Abu Talib (r).
633 Abu Bakr (r) conducts campaigns against eastern Arabs to ensure their compliance with zakat.
Rise of the false prophets.
Battle of Yamama against Musailimah al Kazzab.
Abu Bakr (r) authorizes the preparation of a written copy of the Qur’an, the Mashaf e Siddiqi.
634 Muslim armies defeat the Byzantines at the Battle of Ajnadyn.
Abu Bakr (r) passes away.
Omar ibn al Khattab (r) is elected the Caliph.
635 Campaigns against eastern Roman and Persian Empires.
The Muslims capture Damascus.
636 The Persian army is defeated at the Battle of Qadasia.
The Byzantines are defeated at the Battle of Yarmuk.
Jerusalem conquered by Arab armies. Freedom of worship is guaranteed to Christians.
637 The Muslims capture Madayen, capital of the Persian Empire.
640 Omar bin al As begins campaigns in Egypt.
641 Arab armies advance towards Khorasan, Afghanistan and Sindh.
642 The conquest of Egypt is completed.
Caliph Omar streamlines the administration of the vast empire.
Judicial rulings of Omar ibn al Khattab (r) and Ali ibn Abu Talib (r) provide a basis for the sciences of Fiqh.
Persian armies defeated at the Battle of Nahawand.
643 First construction of the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.
644 Caliph Omar ibn al Khattab (r) is assassinated.
Uthman bin Affan (r) is elected the Caliph.
649 Cyprus is captured from the Byzantines.
650 Pronunciation of Qur’anic verses standardized.
652 Death of Abu Dhar al Ghifari, venerated Companion and Sufi.
656 Caliph Uthman bin Affan (r) is assassinated.
Ali ibn Abu Talib (r) is elected the Caliph.
Beginning of the Civil Wars.
Caliph Ali ibn Abu Talib (r) defeats dissidents under Aisha binte Abu Bakr (r) at the Battle of the Camel.
657 Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan, governor of Syria, refuses to recognize the Caliphate of Ali (r).
Battle of Siffin between forces of Ali (r) and Muawiya.
Beginning of the Kharijite schism.
658 Ali ibn Abu Talib (r) defeats the Kharijites at the Battle of Nahrawan.
Muawiya is declared the Caliph by his supporters in Damascus.
659 Truce between Caliph Ali ibn Abu Talib (r) and Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan.
661 Caliph Ali ibn Abu Talib (r) is assassinated.
Age of Khulfa e Rashidoon ends.
Muawiya claims the Caliphate.
Beginning of the Umayyad dynasty.
Imam Hassan ibn Ali retires from politics.
665 Muawiya orders the buildup of a navy.
667 Muslim armies capture Khorasan.
669 Death of Imam Hassan ibn Ali.
670 Uqba bin Nafi begins the conquest of North Africa.
The city of Kairaoun in North Africa is founded.
671 Muslim armies capture the island of Rhodes.
The first attempt to capture Constantinople fails.
678 Death of Aisha binte Abu Bakr (r), wife of Prophet Muhammed (p) and the source of a large number of Hadith.
680 Death of Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan.
Yazid, son of Muawiya, becomes Omayyad ruler.
The tragedy of Karbala; Hussain ibn Ali, grandson of the Prophet, is martyred.
Beginning of Yawm e Ashoora.
683 Yazid sacks Madina.
Uqba bin Nafi conquers North Africa.
Death of Yazid; Muawiya II succeeds him.
684 Marwan I becomes the Caliph.
685 Abdul Malik becomes the Caliph.
Construction of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem.

etc....
1519 Death of Leonardo da Vinci.
Mexican silver flows into Europe.
1520 Sulaiman the Magnificent becomes Ottoman Sultan.
1521 Sulaiman captures Belgrade.
Cortez destroys the Aztec Empire of Mexico.
1522 Sulaiman captures Rhodes. Spain captures Central America.
1525 Death of Safavid Shah Ismail I.
Tahmasp I becomes Safavid ruler of Persia.
Babur takes Lahore, Pakistan.
Sulaiman the Magnificent orders a reorganization of the Ottoman fleet to challenge the Spaniards and the Portuguese.
1526 Babur captures Delhi; the Moghul dynasty is born. Sulaiman the Magnificent defeats the Hungarians at the Battle of Mohacs.
1527 Babur defeats Rajput armies at the Battle of Khanua.
1528 Sultan Sulaiman captures the city of Buda in Hungary.
Askiya Muhammed becomes blind and is deposed as the Emperor of Songhay.
1529 Sultan Sulaiman lays siege to Vienna, Austria.
1530 Death of Zahiruddin Babur. His son Humayun ascends the Moghul throne in Delhi.
The Englishman William Hawkins raids the Ivory Coast.
1534 Khairuddin, admiral of the Ottoman fleets, recaptures Tunis.
Henry VIII takes the Church of England out of the orbit of Rome.
1535 Sulaiman Pasha, Ottoman governor of Egypt, drives the Portuguese from Yemen.
The English Parliament passes laws against loitering in London.
John Calvin preaches the Protestant Reformation in Switzerland.
Stock Exchange is established in London.
1536 Khairuddin raids Valencia, Spain.
1537 Khairuddin captures Otranto, Italy and threatens Rome.
1538 Khairuddin victorious over combined navies of Venice and the Vatican at the Battle of Prevesa.
1540 Spain colonizes the Philippines.
Destruction of religious relics in England. Beginning of the end of feudalism in England.
Sher Shah Suri defeats Moghul Emperor Humayun and displaces him from the throne of Delhi until 1555.
1541 Charles V of Spain strikes at the Algerian coast.
Ottoman Admiral Khairuddin takes Otranto, Italy.
Muhammed al Saadi drives the Portuguese from the fort of Santa Cruz in Morocco.
1542 Increasing tribal warfare in West Africa.
1546 Death of Khairuddin. Piri Rais becomes admiral of Ottoman navies.
1550 Kingdom of Acheh in Indonesia is founded. Islam spreads in the Archipelago.
1551 The Ottomans reclaim Tripoli.
Piri Rais challenges the Portuguese blockage of the Straits of Hormuz.
1553 Thomas Wyndham of England raids the coast of West Africa.
1554 John Lock of England raids the Ivory Coast.
1557 The Ottomans occupy Masawa, Eritrea.
1558 Akbar becomes Moghul Emperor of India.
1560 Akbar adds Malwa, Chitoor, Rathambur, Gujrat and Bengal to the Moghul Empire (1560-1574).
Abul Fazal and Faizi, well known writers, grace the Moghul court.
Akbar surrounds himself with the “seven gems”; men of outstanding capabilities, including the musician Tan Sen and the Finance Minister Raja Todar Mal.
1561 Piri Rais prepares an accurate map of the Atlantic seaboard.
The Ottomans destroy a Spanish fleet at the Battle of Djerba.
1562 Akbar marries Jodha Bai, princess of Amber, Rajasthan.
1563 First English fortifications off the coasts of New Guinea. (can't be New Guinea)
1564 Spain occupies the Philippines.
1565 Battle of Telekote, India. The combined forces of Bijapur, Golkunda, Bidar and Gulbarga defeat the armies of Vijayanagar in southern India.
Piri Rais undertakes unsuccessful siege of Malta.
Akbar, the Great Moghul, captures Gujrat.
John Hawkins of England conducts slave raids on Sierra Leone.
Sulaiman the Magnificent passes away
1566 Muslims in Spain rebel against forced conversion to Catholicism.
1571 Battle of Lepanto. Combined navies of Spain, Venice, Austria and the Vatican defeat the Ottoman navy and occupy Tunis. Ottoman naval advance into the western Mediterranean is halted.
... etc etc...

I'm not claiming this one particular list is exhaustive, or even 100% accurate... No mention here of Muslim slave trade ... but it shows the enormous task it would have taken to forge all this history..

According to Fomenko all that list would have had to occur in the years from 1600 AD to now...

“I owe it to tell what is being told, but I by no means owe it to believe it”.
Herodotus, [Book 7.153-2]

Herodotus was an ancient Greek writer who lived during the 5th century BC. He was born in what is today Turkey. The only piece of work known to have been produced by Herodotus is The Histories. Nevertheless, this was a revolutionary text, and as a result, it earned Herodotus his place in history. For some, The Histories marks the beginning of historical writing, and hence the title ‘Father of History’ was conferred on Herodotus. Others, however, argue that Herodotus was the ‘Father of Lies’.

A Few Known Details on Herodotus’ Life

Herodotus was born around 484 BC to a privileged family in Halicarnassus, which is today a Turkish city called Bodrum. During Herodotus’ time, this city was part of the mighty Achaemenid Empire. As a former Greek colony and a major trading post with Egypt, it is likely that Halicarnassus was a city that allowed Herodotus to learn about people from other regions.

Statue of Herodotus in his hometown of Halicarnassus, modern Bodrum, Turkey.

Statue of Herodotus in his hometown of Halicarnassus, modern Bodrum, Turkey. (Public Domain)

It is known that he lived in exile at least once, possibly on the island of Samos, and some researchers like to think the writer later led an uprising against Lygdamis for his oppression. Apart from that, there are few other details about Herodotus’ life. We only have information contained within Herodotus’ own writings and some other details about him from later sources such as the Suda, a 10th century Byzantine encyclopedia of the ancient Mediterranean world. thus, there is not much known today about this ancient writer.

Herodotus, Cato the Censor and Josephus: Understanding the Life and Times of Historians of the Ancient World
The Shrouded History of Nitocris: Was the Last Pharaoh of the Sixth Dynasty a Woman?
Thucydides Gave Amazing Insight into War That Shook The Aegean World for Decades
Herodotus Writes about History

Herodotus is remembered by history because of The Histories. Prior to Herodotus, no writer is known to have written about the past through an investigative lens, or attempted to frame it as a series of cause and effect. Therefore, it may be said that Herodotus invented the genre of history writing. It may be because of this that Herodotus was referred to as the ‘Father of History’ by the Roman writer and orator, Cicero.

Fragment from Herodotus' Histories, Book VIII on Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 2099, dated to early 2nd century AD.

Fragment from Herodotus' Histories, Book VIII on Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 2099, dated to early 2nd century AD. (Public Domain)

In fact, his work was rather well-known, and seemingly accepted for the most part in his lifetime. The satirist and rhetorician Lucian suggests it was performed at the Olympic Games, the tragedian Sophocles provides a nod to The Histories in Antigone, and the comic playwright Aristophanes saw Herodotus sufficiently well-known to make fun of him in The Acharnians. Such famous names as Plutarch, Strabo, and Aristotle all seemed to recognize, though not always agree with, Herodotus’ work as well.

In The Histories, Herodotus gives an account of the Greco-Persian Wars, which lasted from 499 to 479 BC. In the preface of his work, Herodotus states that his work is meant to be an “inquiry”, especially into the causes of the war between the Greeks and the Persians. Herodotus then provides a narration about the rise of the Achaemenids until their conflict with the Greek city states. In between, he also provides ethnographic information about various cultures, including the Persians, the Egyptians, and the Scythians. Based on Herodotus’ eye-witness accounts of life in Egypt, Greece, Tyre, Babylon, and Italy, it has been assumed that the writer traveled to these distant lands in order to collect the material he wrote on.

Dedication page for a 1494 version of the ‘Historiae’ by the Greek historian Herodotus, translated into Latin by Lorenzo Valla and edited by Antonio Mancinelli.

Dedication page for a 1494 version of the ‘Historiae’ by the Greek historian Herodotus, translated into Latin by Lorenzo Valla and edited by Antonio Mancinelli. (Public Domain)

Accusations and Criticisms Launched Against Herodotus

Whilst Herodotus was held in high esteem by many, others (often modern analysts of his work) have been more dismissive of him. For some, Herodotus is regarded as the ‘Father of Lies’, as The Histories is said to contain a great amount of tales and fables. One of these, for example, is the story about ants the size of foxes in Persia that spread gold dust when digging their mounds. This, amongst other stories, has been dismissed as a tall tale by generations.

In 1984, however, Michel Peissel, a French author and explorer, reported that there is a type of fox-sized marmot in the Himalayas that spread gold dust when digging. The villagers in the area had a long history of collecting this dust, proving that this was already known in antiquity. Peissel further speculated that as the Persian word for ‘mountain ant’ was very close to their word for ‘marmot’, it is entirely plausible that Herodotus, who did not speak Persian himself and relied on translators, ended up with an error in translation.

A Himalayan marmot. (Christopher J. Fynn/CC BY SA 3.0) It is entirely plausible that Herodotus, who relied on translators, ended up with an error in translation and mistook ‘mountain ant’ for ‘marmot,’

A Himalayan marmot. (Christopher J. Fynn/CC BY SA 3.0) It is entirely plausible that Herodotus, who relied on translators, ended up with an error in translation and mistook ‘mountain ant’ for ‘marmot,’

Others have levelled criticisms on Herodotus for more personal reasons. Plutarch, for example, attacks Herodotus in a piece of work entitled Of the Malice of Herodotus. In it, Plutarch claims that “… he [Herodotus] principally exerts his malice against the Boeotians and Corinthians,…” Plutarch was a native of Chaeronea, in Boeotia, and hence felt that he was “… obliged to defend our ancestors and the truth against this part of his writings,…” Therefore, for Plutarch, Herodotus was not the ‘Father of History’, but a malicious writer who slandered many of the figures in his work.

The Annals of Quedlinburg: Rare Example of Female Scholarship in Medieval Europe
No Rest for the Wicked: The Role of the Telchines in the Myths of Greece and Rome
War, Death and the Wrath of Gods: How Satyr Plays Helped Ancient Greeks Cope With Life
As Herodotus himself nowhere claims to have been an eyewitness to the events he describes, is it fair to call him a liar? On the other hand, is his content on how Greeks and non-Greeks came to strife enough to make him a historian? Perhaps it would be better to view Herodotus as a travel writer, a chronicler, or a journalist with a keen interest in other cultures and history.

So, Herodotus, ‘Father of History’ or ‘Father of Lies’?

A statue of Herodotus at the Austrian Parliament Building in Vienna, Austria.

A statue of Herodotus at the Austrian Parliament Building in Vienna, Austria. (Public Domain)

Top image: Detail of a relief of Herodotus by Jean-Guillaume Moitte, 1806. Cour Carrée in the Louvre Palace, Paris, France. Source: CC BY 3.0

jtb, Have you got a link for the video about Jesus? http://ifers.123.st/t213-jesus-christ-never-existed
Grey, I apologize for missing your request for a link to the site I originally referred to. The site is Eric Dubay's "International Flat Earth Research Society" (IFERS). It appears that opposing or alternate views are censored. There isn't even one dissenting view posted. Makes one question everything on his site.

Ive skimmed through the thread and and although Eclipse data has been mentioned and Morozov named , has the research done by NASA Computer chief (at the time) Robert Newton been discussed? Although I didnt see it specifically it may well have been? . From what I understand its that work that prompted Fomenko in his fiurther study. Newton developed an algorithum based on accepted historical writing dating the ancient eclipses, when he (Newton) set the program loose it showed that the rotation of the Moon actually sped up for a certain period then mysteriously slowed again??.Fomenko then applied Morozov's revised Eclipse data retaining Newtons original algorithum and the anomaly disapeared. Apparently the British Royal Society looked at this issue back in 1973 but came to no conclusion as to what exactly the "mysterious" force was

Robert Russell Newton
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Robert Russell Newton
Born July 7, 1918
Died June 2, 1991 (aged 72)
Citizenship United States of America
Known for The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy
Scientific career
Fields Physics, astronomy, science historian
Institutions Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University
Robert Russell Newton, also R. R. Newton (July 7, 1918 – June 2, 1991)[1] was an American physicist, astronomer, and historian of science.

Newton was Supervisor of the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University. He was known for his book The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy (1977). In Newton's view, Ptolemy was "the most successful fraud in the history of science". Newton showed that Ptolemy had predominantly obtained the astronomical results described in his work The Almagest by computation, and not by the direct observations that Ptolemy described.

Distrust of Ptolemy's observations goes back at least as far as doubts raised in the 16th century by Tycho Brahe and in the 18th Century by Delambre. Arthur Berry made similar remarks in about 1899. R. R. Newton also made a charge of conscious falsification.

Claudius Ptolemy, the Greek astronomer whose publication 1,800 years, ago on celestial motions brought him renown as the greatest astronomer of antiquity, has been described as a fraud.

Not just any kind of fraud either, according to a new book titled "The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy." The book's author is Robert R. Newton of the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University, who says flatly: "Ptolemy is not the greatest astronomer of antiquity, but he is something still more unusual: He is the most sucessful fraud in the history of science."

If Newton is right, few of Ptolemy's observations were his own and few that were his own he either made up or made incorrectly. To hear Newton tell it, Ptolemy operated on a timeworn technique used by countless intellectual cheats. He worked backward to prove the results he wanted to get.

"I taught physics when I was younger and what poor students do to prove an experiment in physics is to make their date up," Newton said yesterday in explaining how he wrote a book suggesting Ptolemy's crime.

"It occurred to me that Ptolemy might have done the same thing my poor students used to do, so I checked into it . . . I now believe he plagiarized some ideas and made others up."

Ptolemy's astronomical work was summed up in a massive book he wrote called The Syntaxis, which, after his death in the second century A.D., became known as Almagest, which is Arabic for "The Greatest."

The Almagest was a synthesis of Greek astronomy, especially the work of Hipparchus who lived almost 200 years before Ptolemy.

The work broke down into 13 books, the first of which placed the Earth at the center of the solar system. The third book dealt with the motion of the sun and length of the year, the fourth with the moon's motion and length of the month. Later books were concerned with the motions of the planets and stars.

What Newton claims is that Ptolemy came up with his theories about the Earth, sun and moon based on measurements that Hipparchus had incorrectly made almost 200 years before. Newton says that Ptolemy claimed to have checked the measurements by Hipparchus and confirmed them when in fact he never checked them out.

"Ptolemy made no allowance for the inaccuracies in Hipparchus measurements, which he could easily have done," Newton said. "Ptolemy tells us he worked for eight years before publishing his work. The fact is he took Hipparchus' measurements on faith and never made any of his own."

Ptolemy said he observed the autumn equinox at Alexandria, Egypt, at 2 p.m. on Sept 25, 132 A.D. Backcalculations from modern tables show that an observer in Alexandria would have seen the equinox at a few minutes before 10 a.m. Sept 24, more than a day earlier.

The discrepancy is doubly strange, Newton says, because Ptolemy said he made this particular observation "with the greatest care."

Ptolemy goes on to say that he used his equinox observation to show how accurately Hipparchus had measured the length of the year. Newton says that all Ptolemy did was accept without checking the observations of Hipparchus, which were off by seven minutes.

"He wanted to be a great astronomer but he wasn't good enough to be one so he made up his data," Newton said of Ptolemy. "He's fooled people for almost 1,800 years."

Why did Ptolemy's fraud last for 1,800 years? Newton says it was because there were no competent astronomers around to point out the fraud in the 100 years after Ptolemy lived. Why not later, then?

"The next time there were competent astronomers were the Arabs of the 9th century," Newton says. "I think it didn't occur to them to check it."

Ptolemy has already found a defender in Owen Gingerich, an astonomer and historian at Harvard University. Gengerich admits that Ptolemy used "some remarkably fishy numbers," but suggests that Ptolemy used only the data that are best with his theory and did not make up data to conform with his theory.

"When Newton (Isaac, not Robert) and Einstein are considered frauds, I shall have to include Ptolemy." Gingerich says in a paper replying to a paper by Newton that preceded his book. "Meanwhile, I prefer to think of him as the greatest astronomer of antiquity."